Re: all xterms
On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 04:45:22PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski was heard to say:
> On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 05:35:32PM -0500, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 07:05:20PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski was heard to say:
> > > Ive sent a patch making pgp and gpg able to lie enywhere shell can find them
> > > (in $PATH I mean) but it was ignored by maintainer who doesnt consider mutt's
> > > way wrong one.
> >
> > I think I can guess at least one possible reason for doing this. By searching
> > anywhere in the path, especially with these particular programs, you
> > introduce a *potential* security hole. Knowing exactly which pgp/gpg binary
> > you're running is a Good Thing. [2]
>
> NO, you are completely WRONG.
> If one have $PATH pointing to world-writable directory he has
> already NO security AT ALL ! This is not *potential* security hole.
Ok, I'm an idiot. (in my own defense it was off the top of my head, and the
directory doesn't have to be world-writable for it to be a problem)
> > Daniel
> >
> > [2] Yes, if you have a small path (/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin) this isn't `
> > likely to be a problem, but hardcoding the path will be equally secure on
> > all setups including those with unholy default paths ;-).
>
> It wont be secure cause I wont be able to check signature's validity
> if I install pgp to /usr/local/ or /opt/ or any else place in the $PATH
> This is bad for security.
Uh, yes you can check signatures. Just tell it where to look.
Daniel
--
"Do you know why the prisoner in the tower watches the flight of birds?"
-- Terry Pratchett, _Reaper_Man_
Reply to: